What the H*** is CNN Doing? (Vanity)

CNN just showed a report on how easy it is to obtain a 50 cal rifle through the internet together with armor piecing rounds, and how to bypass the federal restrictions by a private person-to-person cash sale.

Not only that, these idiots had the investigative reporter fire at an airplane door and discussed how easy it is for a terrorist to use these guns to shoot down commercial aircraft.

One thing Islamic terrorists are is most of them are incredibly stupid and wouldn't know how to go around acquiring a 50 calibre rifle with telescopic sights and armour-piercing rounds.

Now, thanks to CNN, every single terrorist who saw or will become aware of the program now know exactly how to circumvent the law in order to get these weapons.

What irresponsible journalism. Why don't these people realize there are certain things you have to keep your mouth shut on in order to protect the public.

Can any of the American freepers here do what you can to haul CNN on the carpet for this irresponsible report?

A strip of metal not much longer that the length of your hand brought down a Concorde aircraft several years ago.

Only because it managed to hit a sensitive spot. A pigeon can also take a plane down if it hits the right spot. Take a look at goose strike statistics sometime.

Bad luck can take any plane down. But for a terrorist to hit an equally sensitive spot with a single shot from a rifle, he would have to be extremely lucky. I, myself, am no marksman, but neither am I a slouch with a rifle (My personal best is a 8 inch group at 400 yards; but that was a very good day), and I know I couldn't take down a commercial airliner with a single shot. Neither could anyone I know, and some of them are very good shots.

More to the point, if the terrorist misses a critical spot on the plane, he has a strong chance of getting caught and then being taken to Gitmo to "discuss" the identities of his terrorist buddies with some very unsympathetic people from the CIA. Terrorists do not go in for tactics that have such a high risk to themselves with almost no chance of reward. With a SAM, he'd have to be a lot less lucky. And at the ranges shown in the CNN "report", a cheap and inaccurate RPG would be a hell of a lot more effective (and also a hell of a lot cheaper than a .50).

A .50 cal. weapon is extremely powerful, and if fired at a low flying aircraft, not only can it cause significant damage,

It doesn't matter how powerful the .50 is. Commercial aircraft are very lightly built from materials like aluminum because every pound of non-passenger weight is money lost. My .300 Wetherby could punch straight through a commercial airliner just as easily as a .50BMG, and it is a hell of a lot less expensive. The CNN "news" team tried to put some significance to the .50 BMG by shooting it through a 1 inch steel plate, but that just makes them look ridiculous. How many commercial airlines are armored with 1 inch steel? Just think of the fuel expense.

Plain and simple, for a rifle, any rifle, to take down a commercial airliner, it would have to hit the thing in a critical spot. To do so intentionally would require shooting skills beyon human ability. That's why the BMG in .50 BMG stands for "Browning Machine Gun". To take down an airplane with a shot from a .50, you need to spray out a LOT of bullets.

but if it is equipped with a sight it has a good chance of hitting the plane.

Do you do much shooting? Any shooting? Somehow, I think not, and I think you have no clue what you are talking about.

All rifles are equipped with "some sort of sight". I think you are referring to a scope, which still doesn't make much sense. Remember, a plane in flight is a moving target. Aquiring a moving target at range with a scope with any sort of magnification is actually more difficult than using iron sights. I don't have time to explain it here, but it all comes down to magnification and field of view. Simply put, with a high mag scope, your heartbeat is enough to make the crosshairs wobble. Now add in the very high speed movement of the plane, and the tremors from its engine noise, and you have no chance of hitting your target.

Sure, you could hit the plane, but the plane is not your target. You want to hit an area of the plane that contains components whose damage could bring the plane down, and that is a much much smaller target than I think you realize. Couple that to the fact that you are not entirely positive where those components lie under the skin of the plane and also that in the scope one section of the plane's skin looks pretty much like every other, and you do not have a task that is humanly possible with a rifle of any power.

Sure, it is conceivable that it could happen, but it's also conceivable that a comet might strike the plane. Miracles (even anti-miracles) do happen rarely, but that doen't mean we should become chicken littles pushing for meaningless legistation that the terrorists would ignore regardless.

Check out the Fifty Caliber Shooters Association some time. Go to some of their shoots, and talk to people (which is something CNN specifically did NOT do). Some of those guys are the best shots in the world. Ask them if they think they could shoot down an airliner (even at a low altitude) with even a semi-auto Barett. Learn something about the rifle and its capabilities, instead of just repeating that it is big and powerfull.

For myself, whenever I fly I'd be a lot more concerned about terrorists with inexpensive RPGs than expensive boutique rifles. An RPG has a much greater chance of damaging an aircraft in a critical location by the very nature of the weapon (a .50 would punch straight through while an RPG would explode and fragment). More to the point, outside of the U.S., RPGs are a hell of a lot more available to terrorists than expensive high powered rifles marketed to wealthy U.S. marksmen. RPGs are banned for private ownership in the U.S., but terrorists, you may have noticed, would not obey that law more than any hypothetical .50 caliber ban.

> Only because it managed to hit a sensitive spot.

and a gigantic .50 cal weapon can't do the same?

First of all, the .50 BMG is hardly "gigantic". It's merely a scaled up 30-06. I have fired an M2 (the real Magilla), and, while they are big, they are hardly gigantic.

Secondly, yes, it is conceivably possible that a .50 bullet could hit a sensitive spot on an airplane. However, the odds of anyone actually managing to do so intentionally are so astronomically small that it's more likely that all the passengers simultaneously win the lottery. It's actually much more likely for all the passengers to be killed in a comet impact than for a terrorist with a .50 caliber rifle to intentionally take down the plane.

Making another useless law because there's an infinitesimally small chance a terrorist could use a .50 caliber rifle to take down a plane makes about as much sense as making a law against comets hitting the planet. Neither is actually going to happen, and the terrorists wouldn't obey the law any more than the comets regardless.

I believe that was the point. Even with armour, the plane couldn't withstand a direct hit from a .50 cal rifle. It would punch threw the cabin or cockpit like they weren't even there.

You have no idea what you are talking about. You still have to hit a distant small critical target that's moving very fast and which you can't see through the skin of the aircraft. If you don't hit the target, then it doesn't matter how powerfull the rifle is. As a matter of fact, a smaller rifle than the .50 would be more of a threat. The bullet from the .50 would punch straight through the fuselage, while a smaller round would enter and then bounce around or fragment, giving it a higher chance of actually doing serious damage.

You are also not taking into account the redundant nature of commercial aircraft (well, except for ones made by Airbus). Even if Allah is with the terrorists and they manage to hit the pilot (probably the most critical "component"), there's a reason why there's always a co-pilot on the stick at takeoff and landing.

> and I know I couldn't take down a commercial airliner with a single shot.

a lot of people thought the towers couldn't be brought down by only one plane either.

Irrelevant. And ignorant. A lot of "people" might not have thought that, but a lot of engineers and architects knew otherwise. They knew that the towers could withstand a commercial airline strike, which they did. They also knew they towers could not withstand a large fire, and so they designed them to collapse straight downwards (which they also did).

And that still doesn't make any case against the statistical impossibility of bringing down a commercial airplane with a .50 caliber rifle.

> a cheap and inaccurate RPG would be a hell of a lot more effective

only problem is that they are a lot harder to come by in the U.S. than a completely legal .50 cal rifle.

Wrongo. They are more difficult to aquire legally. Think of the tons of drugs that cross our borders every year. You don't think a single RPG could get through? More to the point, an RPG might actually have a chance at taking down an airplane, which is something a single shot .50 BMG simply doesn't have the real world capacity to do.

Also, your use of the term "completely legal" completely neglects to take into account the many thousands of "gun control" laws (not to mention market forces) around the sale of a .50 BMG rifle. You do not simply walk into a K-Mart and pick one up. They take months to order, you have to pay thousands of dollars up front, and thousands more on delivery. Finally, you still have to pass the "Brady Bill" background check before you get your hands on the rifle. As to "private sales", anyone who has gone through all that for their rifle, is not going to readily turn around and sell it cheap to someone off the street (and might still need to go through a waiting period and backgound check depending on the state).

> Plain and simple, for a rifle, any rifle, to take down a commercial airliner, it would have to hit the thing in a critical spot. To do so intentionally would require shooting skills beyond human ability

Not really. I've seen a man blow the heads of squirrels from about the same distance that one can get near a landing or ascending plane in some airports.

But that is not relevant. It is not the same target. I can guarantee the squirrel was not moving when he shot it. He also could see the squirrel's head, and didn't have a sheet of aluminum between them.

Again, you don't shoot much (if at all), do you?

If it were so easy to hit a moving aerial target with a rifle, then why do duck and goose hunters all use shotguns? A sensitive target on a commercial aircraft would be about the same size as a duck, but it is higher, hidden behind aluminum, and moving much faster.

> Now add in the very high speed movement of the plane, and the tremors from its engine noise, and you have no chance of hitting your target.

tell that to Oswald.

Do you mean Lee Harvey Oswald? If so, then again not the same thing at all. Kennedy's staff car was not nearly as fast, or as far away as a commercial airline. He could also see his target (which is why he was in the last presidential convertible). The book repository was not being shaken by a low flying jet engine. Additionally, Oswald did not use a .50 caliber rifle. He did manage to shoot Kennedy, but he did not in any way cause the car to crash.

Have you ever shot a moving passenger plane before? Then it is possible that shooting a plane with such a weapon would cause more damage than you realize.

I have not fired on a moving passenger plane. Neither have you. The whole statement is specious. I, however, actually have some knowledge and experience as to what would happen (which you have only been able to counter with hyperbole and fear). I have fired an M2 at a moving ground target (that was a fun day). It's a lot harder to do than you realize. The fully automatic (not to mention fully regulated, licenced, and taxed) M2 did trash the truck, but only after about half a belt was fed into it. A single shot certainly wouldn't have done much more than my .30 caliber rifle, and considering the first few shots missed, I can say that a single shot in the same circumstances wouldn't have done anything at all.

Back to the point of this whole thread: CNN did a fake news story about the .50 caliber rifle. They did not show any interviews with anyone who competitively shoots the rifle. Nor did they compare the effects of the rifle in their "demonstration" with any other firearm to show the actual relative power of the .50 BMG cartridge. They tried to make the completely spurious point that one of these rifles could be fired at an airplane, but did not mention the plain fact that actually bringing down a plane with one of these rifles is so difficult that it's beyond impossible.

All this is not surprising considering their intent is to have these weapons banned as an increment to the fascist liberal dream of total citizen disarmament. Just like all the lies spewed about "assault weapons", CNN is hoping they can frighten enough ignorant spineless cowardly chicken littles into supporting their irrational cause by trying to make the marks think that because something could conceivably happen in their liberal fantasy land (the same place where socialism works) that it could actually happen in the real world. They also think that it is right to punish law abiding citizens for what terrorists might do, instead of just punishing criminals for acts they actually commit (which is what a just and free society does).

And you, chronotrigger, fell for it. Hook, line, and sinker.

First of all, the .50 BMG is hardly "gigantic".

Then stand in front of one while I try to hit you with it. Then tell me if it is big enough.

A lot of "people" might not have thought that, but a lot of engineers and architects knew otherwise.

So many that they all rushed to fix the problem...hmmm.

You have no idea what you are talking about. You still have to hit a distant small critical target that's moving very fast and which you can't see through the skin of the aircraft.

How do you know that? How many times has a U.S. commercial aircraft been hit by one?

Do you mean Lee Harvey Oswald? If so, then again not the same thing at all. Kennedy's staff car was not nearly as fast, or as far away as a commercial airline.

But yet, for years many people thought that it was impossible for Oswald to have pulled it off. That's why they made up the grassy knoll people. The point is, even though something may seem impossible, you don't really know if it is until someone tries it-often ending in tragedy.

He did manage to shoot Kennedy, but he did not in any way cause the car to crash.

1)he wasn't aiming for the car.

2)Even if the car had crashed, it would have it no way compared to the damage that a crashing plane will cause.

If it were so easy to hit a moving aerial target with a rifle, then why do duck and goose hunters all use shotguns?

Because a duck is less than 100th the mass and size of a commercial aircraft. A plane is just a tiny bit more of a target. You must not fly much.

I, however, actually have some knowledge and experience as to what would happen (which you have only been able to counter with hyperbole and fear).

Don't give me that crap. You just admitted that you have never fired on an aircraft; therefore, it is impossible for you to be dishing this nonsense about it being impossible to hit a plane with a .50 BMG when you have absolutely zero clue as to what would actually happen if a plane were hit by one or more rounds from it. All you can respond with is 1984 style brainwashing and Internet talking points.

I have fired an M2 at a moving ground target (that was a fun day). It's a lot harder to do than you realize. The fully automatic (not to mention fully regulated, licensed, and taxed) M2 did trash the truck, but only after about half a belt was fed into it.

Look son, let me educate you a little bit on the differences between a car and a large passenger aircraft. First, if a car is taken out, then only a few people are hurt or killed. If an aircraft is taken out, it crashes violently-probalby killing everyone (100s probably). Secondly, a Boeing 747, 767, ect., is a much larger target than a car. Thirdly, it is more vulnerable upon takeoff and landing than you think, it's not like it's exactly moving a Mach speed. And considering that a 767, etc., isn't built like a flying fortress, then it's not likely to be able to take a tremendous amount of fire. Lastly, even if only 10% of the people on a 747 are hurt or killed, then that's several times the damage that a typical car crash causes.

the plain fact that actually bringing down a plane with one of these rifles is so difficult that it's beyond impossible.

like talking to a rock.

And you, chronotrigger, fell for it. Hook, line, and sinker.

Not really, I consider myself to a pretty rational and open-minded person. Afterall, I have listened to your arguments, haven't I.

I'm no fan of CNN, but even I realize that another point to this story was that airport security is extremely lacking. If not a .50 BMG, then maybe something else.

their intent is to have these weapons banned as an increment to the fascist liberal dream of total citizen disarmament

CNN didn't do such an evil thing by broadcasting this piece-if it were really anti-gun, then it sucked at it's message. If they really wanted to wage a "ban gun" campaign, then they could have done a lot more than this little story.

Oh God. Here we go again. I often wonder why I bother debating with people who are so ignorant of their ignorance. Some people really need to learn when they should stop digging their holes deeper.

> First of all, the .50 BMG is hardly "gigantic".

Then stand in front of one while I try to hit you with it. Then tell me if it is big enough.

Um. Hellloooo? We are talking about shooting down planes, not people. You arguement is sidetracking and specious, and just makes you look ignorant and petulant. More to the point, the power of the .50 BMG is irrelevant. I wouldn't stand in front of a .22 rimfire, or any other rifle for that matter.

> A lot of "people" might not have thought that, but a lot of engineers and architects knew otherwise.

So many that they all rushed to fix the problem...hmmm.

Again with the sidetracking ignorant spurious comments. But, just to humor you, how do you suggest they should have "fixed" the "problem"? The towers were not designed to withstand intense fire. They were, however, designed to collapse straight down in the event of such a fire, and not fall over and possibly bring down neighboring buildings. The airplane strikes did not bring down the twin towers, the fires did.

More to the point, the "solution" to the "problem" presented by the September 11 attacks is a political one, not an engineering one. It's also a simple solution. If a single law abiding american citizen on each of the four hijacked planes had had his Second Ammendment enumerated right to keep and bear arms respected, and had been thussly armed, the terrorists and their one inch box cutters wouldn't have stood a chance, and the September 11 attacks would not have happened. But, thanks to the unconstitutional anti-gun efforts of ignorant cowardly chicken littles like yourself, commercial aircraft have become the ultimate example of "successful gun control" where a very small number of homocidal thugs were able to kill three thousand innocents armed with nothing more than one inch box knives.

> You have no idea what you are talking about. You still have to hit a distant small critical target that's moving very fast and which you can't see through the skin of the aircraft.

How do you know that?

Because I know something about the design and speed of commercial aircraft. Because I have done a lot of shooting with a wide variety of firearms (including the .50 BMG you fear so much). Most importantly, I bothered to think about the problem of shooting down a commercial aircraft before just spouting off a baseless and knowledgeless opinion.

How many times has a U.S. commercial aircraft been hit by one?

Not once. Nor will they ever. That is my point. However, many other aircraft have been shot with the .50 BMG. Look at your history. The P51 Mustang was equipped with six fully automatic .50 caliber M2 Browning machine guns. And yet, even with six guns blazing, this aircraft often failed to bring down german bombers even after giving them their full load of ammunition (that's where the phrase "the whole nine yards" comes from; a standard belt of .50 BMG ammunition is nine yards long). As early as the Korean war, the .50 caliber machine gun was swapped out of fighter aircraft in favor of larger and more destructive 20mm cannons.

As a better example, given the subject of shooting down a commercial airplane with a single shot .50 calibre rifle, consider the M51 anti aircraft trailer. This thing was equipped with four fully automatic .50 caliber M2 Browning machine guns on a stabilized electrical power assisted turret, and yet, even it was only marginally effective at shooting down low flying aircraft, and mostly was used against ground targets (though this sometimes violated the rules of warfare at the time). It was so inadequate that by the Korean war, it was replaced by the 40mm Bofors Gun (which had proximity fused shells).

Now, consider the fact that the modern pressurized, jet engined commercial airliner is faster (with the possible exception of some freaky peroxide rocket planes the Germans had late in the war), stronger, more robust, and more redundant than any world war two era aircraft. If four fully automatic power assisted .50 caliber machine guns were inadequate for shooting down even low flying aircraft of the day, what chance does a human being have with a single shot from a .50 caliber rifle? None. That's how much.

But yet, for years many people thought that it was impossible for Oswald to have pulled it off.

So what? Your own posts make it abundantly clear that ignorant people can believe anything is possible or impossible. Reality does not depend on what ignorant people think it is. I and many many more people know it was more than possible to make that shot. I know I could have, and I also know I could not shoot down a commercial airline with a .50 caliber rifle.

I remember the assasination. Kennedy didn't die because people thought the shot Oswald made was impossible. Far from it; Kennedy was urged to ride with the car's top up by the Secret Servicemen around him. Kennedy died because he didn't think it was possible that someone would want to take the shot.

The point is, even though something may seem impossible, you don't really know if it is until someone tries it-often ending in tragedy.

And yet, I still think it's impossible to fly around the city throwing water balloons at people just by flapping my arms. Many other people think that seems impossible. Because it is. And if you actually have knowledge of a subject, instead of fearful ignorance, things don not seem impossible. You know they are impossible.

And "often ending in tragedy"? "Often"? Puhhhleeeze. The vast vast majority of times someone tries something as utterly and stupidly impossible as bringing down a commercial airplane with a .50 BMG rifle, they fail completely. This is only a "tragedy" for the nitwit who makes the attempt. The airplane passengers wouldn't so much as notice their failure.

More to the point, in a free society that is not ruled by cowardice, we do not create laws controlling or punishing people based on what seems possible or not. We only punish people based on what they do. And we do NOT punish people for crimes other people do (OK, we do do all these things, but only because we have strayed from the constitution and the free society it mandates).

> If it were so easy to hit a moving aerial target with a rifle, then why do duck and goose hunters all use shotguns?

Because a duck is less than 100th the mass and size of a commercial aircraft.

No. Wrong. You really don't know a damn thing about hunting, shooting, or firearms. It has absolutely nothing to do with the mass of the duck. A daisy BB gun is much less powerfull than even a .410 shotgun, yet it has enough power to kill a duck, but it has no chance of actually hitting it. Duck hunters use shotguns because the spreading pattern of the shot means they have that much more of a chance that one of the pellets will hit the fast target of the duck flying against the difficult to track background of the sky.

A plane is just a tiny bit more of a target. You must not fly much.

Helloooo. We are not talking about shooting at a "plane". We are talking about shooting at small critical components within the plane to cause the plane to crash. If you do not hit one of these small critical components (and, given the massive redundancy of commercial aircraft, you'd have to hit several), the plane does not crash. And most of these critical components are smaller than a duck. The terrorist wants to bring the plane down, not just give the ground crew a couple of holes to wonder about after the plane lands. And I've spent more hours in the air than you've had hot dinners. Guaranteed.

You just admitted that you have never fired on an aircraft; therefore, it is impossible for you to be dishing this nonsense about it being impossible to hit a plane with a .50 BMG when you have absolutely zero clue as to what would actually happen if a plane were hit by one or more rounds from it

I know the capabilities of the .50 BMG. I know about it's size, weight, and recoil. I know its range, muzzle velocity, and deflection. I know about the magnification and field of view of the scope (and why a scope is useless for shooting airborne targets). I know the size of the target. I know the speed of the target. I know the approach angle of the target. I know the history of the weapon and it use against similar slower and weaker targets. Therefore, I know the extreme difficully (not to mention the simple logistical impossibility) of pulling off such a shot. You know none of these things. You only have fears and ignorance. You have yet to post one single relevant fact, but limit yourself to hyperbole and cowardly speculation.

And as to the "one or more shots", you really don't know what you are talking about. The fully automatic M2 is a slow cycle action. The fastest of the civilian .50 BMG rifles in existence is the Barrett 82A1 has a cycle time of about a half second. You get ONE shot.

> I have fired an M2 at a moving ground target (that was a fun day). It's a lot harder to do than you realize. The fully automatic (not to mention fully regulated, licensed, and taxed) M2 did trash the truck, but only after about half a belt was fed into it.

Look son,

Can't you get anything right? Anything at all. "Son"? You should at least read my handle, even if you continue to be unable to read or understand my posts. Also, I'm older than you. Guaranteed.

let me educate you a little bit on the differences between a car and a large passenger aircraft. First, if a car is taken out, then only a few people are hurt or killed. If an aircraft is taken out, it crashes violently-probalby killing everyone (100s probably).

But that doesn't matter because the subject is the difficulty of taking down the plane, not the cost of the possible damage. Sure, a lot more people die if a plane crashes, but it is infinitely easier to hit a truck. Do the math. Say four people die if a truck crashes. You have a 5% chance of crashing the truck with a .50 BMG rifle. Say 400 people die if a Boeing 747 crashes. But you only have a 1x10^-100% chance (which is being really generous) of bringing down the plane with a .50 BMG rifle. Therefore, for every 1 person killed by shooting a truck with a .50 BMG rifle, only 1x10^-100 people are killed by shooting at a 747 with a .50 BMG rifle (that' might be as much as a single pulled hair). I don't know about you, but I'll keep flying the friendly skies.

Your fear of the envisioned consequences and ignorance of the actual impossibility of the success of such an attack are distorting your perceptions of the risk.

Secondly, a Boeing 747, 767, ect., is a much larger target than a car.

Once again, the airplane is NOT the target. The actual target is one of a small number of small, critical components necessary to keep the aircraft flying. Shooting the plane will not bring it down unless you have the extreme luck to take out more than one of these redundant systems in your shot. It's simply not going to happen. Aircraft get hit by lightning all the time (which leave holes about the same size as a .50 caliber bullet) which has a much higher chance of damaging critical electrical systems thasn a simple metal slug, and yet the still manage to stay airborne.

Thirdly, it is more vulnerable upon takeoff and landing than you think, it's not like it's exactly moving a Mach speed.

So what? Who said anything about "mach speed"? It's still going a hell of a lot faster than any duck, truck, or anything else you might ever shoot at. And you do not understand what is meant by "vulnerable". Vulnerable to wind conditions: yes. Vulnerable to pilot error: yes. Vulnerable to shoddy maintenance: yes. Vulnerable to a terrorist with any size of rifle: No. Take a look at the statistics for aircraft which have lost whole control surfaces on takeoff (which is much more than any .50 BMG bullet could do) and yet still managed to cycle down and return to the tarmac.

Also, on takeoff an landing, an airplane is flying low so you need to slew your rifle very quickly to aquire your target (which, remember, is a small critical component concealed behind the skin of the airplane). To hit an airborne target, you need to "lead" it. Put simply, you need to shoot at where the target is going to be when the bullet gets there (which is why every few rounds on a standard machine gun belt is a "tracer" round so you can see where your bullets are actually going relative to the target; but remember, that's for a licensed, regulated, taxed, numbered, and controlled machine gun). Even with an extremely low altitude of 200 yards (below which, any damage inflicted by the rifle is extremely unlikely to cause a catastrophic descent), given the 747 minimum takeoff speed of 155 miles per hour, and the .50 BMG's muzzle velocity of 2900 feet per second (which is the fastest it will go) and assuming the bullet does not slow down (which it does, a lot), in order to hit a critical target on the 747, you will need to aim at a patch of empty air about 47 feet in front of it. And through a scope, one patch of air looks just like every other. This shot simply cannot be done in the real world.

And considering that a 767, etc., isn't built like a flying fortress,

Actually, it has a pressurized cabin, so it has to have greater fuselage integrity. It has a much greater load weight, so it has much stronger load members in the wings and control surfaces. It's flight systems are redundant by at least a factor of four (unless it made by Airbus - do not fly on anything made by Airbus). Moreover, they are also much more compact. It's controls are managed by multiple onboard computers which maintain stability faster than any human pilot. It has vastly more powerfull and robust engines, and much greater engine redundancy; a 747 can take off or land with half its engines turned off while even B29 could only lose one. Their landing gear are composed of banks of multiple load sharing tires instead of just a single wheel each, and are equipped with load sensing shocks and cooled antilock brakes. So you are actually right on one thing: a 767 is not built like a world war two flying fortress. It's much more robust.

then it's not likely to be able to take a tremendous amount of fire.

"Tremendous amount of fire"? Your get ONE shot. That is not a "tremendous amount" of anything.

Lastly, even if only 10% of the people on a 747 are hurt or killed, then that's several times the damage that a typical car crash causes.

If you do managed to hit the plane, and if you do manage to hit the fuselage, and if the bullet isn't stopped by the bomb proof cargo containers that are standard issue on all domestic 747's these days, the best luck you could hope for would be to hit one of the passengers or crew. That single person would die. However, hitting and taking out enough of the small critical systems on the plane to cause it to crash and kill more people is simply not going to happen in the life time of this universe. Except for that one very unlucky passenger, everyone else would be just fine. You, on the other hand, would be the subject of a massive manhunt, you would be found, and then you would have to explain all about your terrorist buddies and their addresses to some very unsympathetic men at Gitmo. There are much easier, cheaper, less risky, and simpler ways for terrorists to kill a single person, and they know it.

like talking to a rock.

It's like your ripples of ignorance and fear splashing against the solid stone of my actual knowledge of the subject.

I consider myself to a pretty rational and open-minded person. Afterall, I have listened to your arguments, haven't I.

But you haven't bothered to think about a single thing I've said. And you haven't bothered to educate yourself on the matter. You still don't seem to understand that merely hitting a plane is not sufficient to bring it down, but that you have to hit something in the plane critical enought to keep it from flying. So, no matter what you think you have, you do not have an open mind.

Talk to anyone at the Fifty Calibre Shooters Association. I know a lot more about shooting and the .50 BMG than you do. Guaranteed. And most of those guys know a heck of a lot more about the .50 BMG than I do. Many of them shoot the .50 BMG every single day (lucky rich buggers). They know what it can and can't destroy. Ask them about the chances of a terrorist, or even a world class marksman, somehow managing to bring down an commercial airliner with even a Barrett 82A1. They'll tell you exactly what I have told you, and probably more.

Seriously. Send them an e-mail if you are really interested in learning the facts of the matter, instead of just swallowing the drek CNN spews out.

I'm no fan of CNN, but even I realize that another point to this story was that airport security is extremely lacking. If not a .50 BMG, then maybe something else.

It was a very small second point to the story. And the whole point I've been trying to make is that just about anything else is a whole lot more effective at attacking a plane than a .50 BMG. One inch long box knives have brought down more planes that the .50 BMG ever will.

> their intent is to have these weapons banned as an increment to the fascist liberal dream of total citizen disarmament

CNN didn't do such an evil thing by broadcasting this piece-

Ok, now we're getting back into la-la-land. CNN went out of their way to "prove" the "destructive capacity" of the .50 BMG. But they didn't actually report on any relevant facts or context. They did NOT compare the rifle to other, smaller cartridges. They did NOT give any credible scenario in which a .50 BMG could be used against an airplane; they just assured us it "could". They did NOT mention the actual price or waiting time involved in buying one of these rifles (apart from any other license fees and "governemtn waiting periods). They did NOT interview anyone from the FCSA or any other group familiar with the weapon who might introduce some reality into the story they're trying to create. They didn't even mention the difficulty of aiming such a heavy rifle, even after the "reporter" completely missed his first shot at only 100 yards (pathetic). They sure went out of their way to sho how "powerfull" the weapon is, though (apparently "power to the people" doesn't apply to powerful armaments at CNN).

I other words, CNN obviously had no desire to report the truth about the .50 BMG in this hit piece. If their intent was not to make ignorant people afraid, than I have a real hard time understanding just what it could be.

if it were really anti-gun, then it sucked at it's message.

I don't know about that. It managed to get you to believe a completely impossible scenario is plausible. It's message was "be afraid of the gun". They didn't even bother to apply a cloak of impartiality on this one.

If they really wanted to wage a "ban gun" campaign, then they could have done a lot more than this little story.

Just wait. They will. If they came out and called for an outright ban, then they'd be revealing their hand too soon, and confirming their fascist agenda to even to the average CNN viewer (who is usually a fascist nitwit). Instead, they used fear inducing gun grabber code phrases like "unregulated" (they are not unregulated - 20,000 laws, more in some states, say otherwise) and "anyone off the street" (who happens to have many many thousands of spare dollars and six months to a year to wat for delivery) to plant a seed of fear and doubt in otherwise pro-gun but ignorant viewers.

The .50 caliber and so called "sniper" rifles, are the "assault weapon" of the new millenium. It does not get used in crimes, and it is no threat to the average citizen, but it does represent a threat to the ambitions of currupt individuals and the corporate despots who support them. It's expensive, and it's owned by a small enough percentage of Americans that they think they can marginalize and demonize them further so that gun owners without .50 BMG's will tolerate this increment to a total citizen disarmament (which is their stated ultimate goal). The question is, "This time around, are the American People gullible enough to fall for it again?"

Again with the sidetracking ignorant spurious comments. But, just to humor you, how do you suggest they should have "fixed" the "problem"?

The insulation of the building was sprayed on. When the planes hit, the insulation was blown away. They could have placed and secured it instead-thereby, reducing the heat. They might still be standing if they had. That humourous enough?

Um. Hellloooo? We are talking about shooting down planes, not people.

I was trying to demonstrate that any high caliber weapon is not a toy-something to be relegated to speculation and "impossibilities."

ignorant and petulant

Working on those SAT vocabulary builders huh?

The towers were not designed to withstand intense fire.

They could have been, that's the point. Furthermore, the building could have been retrofitted to better withstand a large fire-they just never thought of it. The same way people never think about people with large weapons firing at commercial planes at airports.

If a single law abiding American citizen on each of the four hijacked planes had had his Second Ammendment enumerated right to keep and bear arms respected, and had been thussly armed, the terrorists and their one inch box cutters wouldn't have stood a chance,

First of all, that is totally irrelevant to the argument. Secondly, I think you confuse my position on guns with airport security. Thirdly, what if the terrorists had used the same right-after becoming citizens-to bring even larger weapons on board? Some old lady with a pea shooter won't stop 5 well armed terrorists.

. But, thanks to the unconstitutional anti-gun efforts of ignorant cowardly chicken littles like yourself,

I'll refer you back to the part were I tell you not to "confuse by position (which I haven't said) on guns with my position on airport security. If you want to continue debating a great person like myself (trying to humor you), stay on point.

And yet, even with six guns blazing, this aircraft often failed to bring down German bombers even after giving them their full load of ammunition.

They were bombers, not commercial aircraft.

things don not seem impossible. You know they are impossible.

"Men will never fly faster than sound," "the atom will never yield useful energy." People used to know a lot of stuff was impossible, humph.

More to the point, in a free society that is not ruled by cowardice

What would you know about cowardice or bravery? Probably nothing. Talk is cheap, serve in a war-or some parts of america-if you know so much about it.

Helloooo. We are not talking about shooting at a "plane".

Really! Could have fooled me.

Duck hunters use shotguns because the spreading pattern of the shot means they have that much more of a chance that one of the pellets will hit the fast target of the duck flying against the difficult to track background of the sky.

The plane is larger than the duck, therefore easier to hit, nuff said.

I know the size of the target. I know the speed of the target. I know the approach angle of the target. I know the history of the weapon and it use against similar slower and weaker targets.

Your name isn't Muhammad, is it?

And as to the "one or more shots", you really don't know what you are talking about.

One or more shots, means one or more people-think.

but limit yourself to hyperbole and cowardly speculation.

Look son, I really don't think you know the definition of cowardly-you spineless litte turd.

<>Also, I'm older than you. Guaranteed.

You should put that guarantee of yours on a box. It's sooooo believable that I'm sure it will sell well.

Once again, the airplane is NOT the target.

Okay your majesty-whatever you say.

Who said anything about "mach speed"?

Usually when people say things like that, they are trying to make a point. "It's raining cats and dogs" means that it is raining hard, etc.

You're one of those militia guys/gals right? Mirror glasses, dark shirt, cameo pants and cap, A.K. 47. Nice to meet a non-cowardly person like yourself.

Do the math. Say 400 people die if a Boeing 747 crashes. But you only have a 1x10-100% chance

You're assuming I agree with your math, which I don't. Besides just shooting down a plane, part of a terrorist's job is to "terrorize." Shooting at a plane with a powerful weapon would accomplish that(that's part of what CNN was saying)- and don't say they would be caught. Have they arrested the anthrax mailer yet?

I know a lot more about shooting and the .50 BMG than you do. Guaranteed. And most of those guys know a heck of a lot more about the .50 BMG than I do. Many of them shoot the .50 BMG every single day (lucky rich buggers). They know what it can and can't destroy. Ask them about the chances of a terrorist, or even a world class marksman, somehow managing to bring down an commercial airliner with even a Barrett 82A1. They'll tell you exactly what I have told you, and probably more.

Alright then, if it will make you happy, I will totally do that. And if it will make you even more happy, I will completely agree with you that shooting down a plane with a .50 BMG is tremendously difficult.

Another point to the story is that it could be used in an attempted assassination of the president-or other people. You're getting caught up in one aspect of the story. I don't see how reporting on the dangers of that is anti-gun.

Speculation based on a lack of knowledge. Even a "retrofit" of the towers would not have insulated them enough to sustain the kind of extended duration high temperature fires that brought them down. It would have been expensive, and ultimately worthless. The designers of the towers were well aware of the risks of an extended fire, wjhich is why the towers were designed to pancake like they did.

7gt; Um. Hellloooo? We are talking about shooting down planes, not people.

I was trying to demonstrate that any high caliber weapon is not a toy-something to be relegated to speculation and "impossibilities."

No you weren't. You were attempting to sidetrack the issue with an irrelevancy as a vain and childish attempt to "gain points". Your point was spurious, because you have contributed nothing to this discussion except speculation. And even your specualtions are wrong and easily disproved. Where are your facts? You have none. Everything you have mentioned has been speculation or irrelevant attempts to divert away from your wrong position. You have not once even bothered to disprove a single fact of the matter I have mentioned, because you can't.

>ignorant and petulant

Working on those SAT vocabulary builders huh?

Another pathetic attempt at a sidetrack for "points". Well, to humor you, I sat the SAT decades ago, and, while I don't remember my score, I remember I did extrememyl well on it (only to find out it wasn't needed for the college I eventually went to).

So I have a large vocabulary. I see no reason why I shouldn't use it, even when "debating" (if you can call this mismatched exercise a debate) the ignorant and callow.

> The towers were not designed to withstand intense fire.

They could have been, that's the point. Furthermore, the building could have been retrofitted to better withstand a large fire-they just never thought of it.

Ignorant speculation. And wrong. And people DID think of it. Why do you think they designed the building to "pancake" like they did? You still have not addressed that issue.

The same way people never think about people with large weapons firing at commercial planes at airports.

Again with the ignorant speculation. The same scenario has, in fact, been bouncing around for quite some while. Many people with a lot more knowlede than you have considered the problem and come up with the same conclusion: impossible. I first heard about this supposed "threat" in the early nineties. Since then, I've seen a lot of variations on the same ignorant theme: "the .50 caliber shoot down police helicopters, it can shoot through boats, it can shoot through tanks, it can say bad words around your virgin daughters." Take a look at some old gun grabber propaganda some time. CNN was basically just reheating some already discredited gun grabber lies in the hope of finding a new gullible audience.

Thirdly, what if the terrorists had used the same right-after becoming citizens-to bring even larger weapons on board?

First of all, you are speculating that these "terrorists" would become citizens. Secondly, you wrongly think giving your hypothetical terrorists "even larger weapons" makes them more of a threat. You still do not understand that with firearms bigger is not necessarily better. Terrorists with larger weapons would be seen, and countered by the much greater number of law abiding citizens with concealed, smaller arms that are much easier to wield in the confines of an airplane cabin. Even better, the terrorists would have no idea as to the level of resistance they would get from armed citizens, would have no clue as to their chances of success, and would try a different tactic. Thanks to airline "gun control", the terrorists knew exactly how much resistance they would receive: none.

Some old lady with a pea shooter won't stop 5 well armed terrorists.

More ignorant speculation and hyperbole like this does not benefit your position. For one thing, you have no idea what "well armed" means. I know for a fact that this old lady with her Glock 27 could account for three at least three. The September 11 thugs would have stood no chance.

> And yet, even with six guns blazing, this aircraft often failed to bring down German bombers even after giving them their full load of ammunition.

They were bombers, not commercial aircraft.

They were World War Two bombers. Modern commercial aircraft are much much more robust than any world War Two bomber. I did explain this. Yet you continue to spout the same incorrect, ignorant, and now disproven assumption.

The .50 BMG is a World War Two era munition barely adequate to bring down World War Two era aircraft, even when used in multiple fully automatic machine guns. The same cartridge has no chance against a modern commercial airplane.

"Men will never fly faster than sound," "the atom will never yield useful energy." People used to know a lot of stuff was impossible, humph.

All of which were based on ignorance. A lot of ignorance. People who said "people will never fly faster than the speed of sound" were ignorant of what future planes would be capable of. However, saying "people in the airplanes of 1940 could not fly faster than the speed of sound" is knowledgable and correct. And since we (well, not you apparently) know the capabilities of the .50 BMG and modern commercial aircraft, the statement "shooting down a modern commercial airplane with a .50 BMG rifle is impossible" is also knowledgable and correct.

You seem unable to determine the difference between speculation and knowledge. Which makes a bit of sense, because specualtion is all you have.

What would you know about cowardice or bravery? Probably nothing. Talk is cheap, serve in a war-or some parts of america-if you know so much about it.

A lot more than you, apparently. And I have. You are still making incorrect assumptions and ignorant conjectures.

> Duck hunters use shotguns because the spreading pattern of the shot means they have that much more of a chance that one of the pellets will hit the fast target of the duck flying against the difficult to track background of the sky.

The plane is larger than the duck, therefore easier to hit, nuff said.

Such stalwart ignorance. Larger targets are not always easier to hit. If you had any experience or knowledge of shooting, you'd know that. The speed and distance of the target are more important than its size. There are easily obtained gunnery manuals from the U.S. Navy that explain these concept in small, easy to understand words.

Also, Once again, because you just do not seem to be able to comprehend this very simple fact: the "plane" is not your target. Your actual target is a critical component of the plane which could cause the plane to crash if it is destroyed. So far, you have completely failed to address (and haven't even tried) this very damning disproof of your ignorant speculations.

Suppose you do manage to get off a one in a thousand shot and hit the airplane. Unless your shot has the extreme luck to hit one (and thanks to redundancy probably more than one) of the critical companents, the plane will keep flying. And these components make up only a very small amount of the total area of the plane, and are scattered within it. You'd have to fire a a whole lot of rounds to have a chance that one will be lucky enough to hit enough critical systems, which is why all anti aircraft systems using the .50 BMG cartridge used multiple fully automatic machine guns. Intentionally hitting any of these systems, which are small, travelling very fast, and hidden from your view behind the aircraft skin, is impossible. Hitting enough of them to bring down the airplane is even more impossible.

> I know the size of the target. I know the speed of the target. I know the approach angle of the target. I know the history of the weapon and it use against similar slower and weaker targets.

Your name isn't Muhammad, is it?

Again, your lack of any knowledge or rational arguments to support your incorrect and ignorant position has led you to resort to irrelevant cheap shots. And it is not helping your case.

> And as to the "one or more shots", you really don't know what you are talking about.

One or more shots, means one or more people-think.

I already considered this, but I though it was too stupid an arguement for even you to make.

Every shooter means a larger conspiracy, thus increasing the chance of detection before the attempt. Every shooter also doubles likelihood of detection during the attempt. These rifles are physically large and heavy. It is barely conceivable that a single shooter could remain concealed, but two, or three or more? They won't be able to cluster together, but they's still need to coordinate their attack on a single plane, also increasing the odds of detection. These heavy rifles will need some form of large support just to keep them aimed upwards and steady while firing into the air, thereby decreasing their already pathetic "concealability". More shooters means more expensive rifles; two Barret 82A1's cost much more than a single RPG. And you would need hundreds (if not thousands) of shooters for one of them to be even a close approximation of the firepower of even a single M2, and for enough of them to be lucky enough to somehow hit enough critical components on the airplane. The simple logistics of the exercise make it impossible, even before anyone pulls a trigger.

Try again.

Look son, I really don't think you know the definition of cowardly-you spineless litte turd.

Again with the "son". Do you even bother to read my posts before spewing out the same ignorant speculations? And such a vile personal attack still doesn't help your arguement. Also, you keep repeating the same incorrect speculations about the "power" of the .50 caliber and the "fragility" of commercial airplanes, without any actualy knowledge. If you can come up for another reason for what I'll sympathetically call your irrational and baseless "concern" about the situation besided simple fear, I'd sure like to hear it.

> Also, I'm older than you. Guaranteed.

You should put that guarantee of yours on a box. It's sooooo believable that I'm sure it will sell well.

The let me put it this way. Even if you do somehow have my decades, you sure haven't demonstrated the knowledge or maturity (not to mention the debating skills) that generally comes with it. So far, I've taken your lack of a rational arguement to be a sign of youth and inexperience. It would be very pathetic for an adult to have posted what you have.

7gt; Once again, the airplane is NOT the target.

Okay your majesty-whatever you say.

You're only digging your hole deeper. You need to target small components of the plane to hit it critically and bring it down. Are you even going to try to counter this fact? You have missed many opportunities so far, so I can only assume you cannot (actually I know you cannot, because it can't be done).

>Who said anything about "mach speed"?

Usually when people say things like that, they are trying to make a point. "It's raining cats and dogs" means that it is raining hard, etc.

Well, what you were doing was trying to extend your arguement with hyperbole instead of facts. And it didn't work. As I already explained, even the 155 mph takeoff speed of the 747 (well below the speed of sound) is more than fast enough to make the shot impossible. I note you have ignored those facts completely, but instead try to weasel out of your previous sad little arguement.

You're one of those militia guys/gals right? Mirror glasses, dark shirt, cameo pants and cap, A.K. 47. Nice to meet a non-cowardly person like yourself.

How cute: a speculative straw man arguement. And, even better, one that completely misses the mark. Now your collection of incompetent debating techniques is complete. I guess that without any facts to back up your claims, the only thing you can do is resort to fabrications in a sad attempt at character assasination. How very Clinton of you.

Besides just shooting down a plane, part of a terrorist's job is to "terrorize." Shooting at a plane with a powerful weapon would accomplish that(that's part of what CNN was saying)- and don't say they would be caught.

Somehow, I fail to see the terror of a plain not crashing. CNN and big media tried to push the "laser" scare a few weeks back, and yet it also was not sufficient to bring down a plane. That didn't scare me, and neither does the .50 caliber "threat".

And they would be caught. The guy with the laser was, in fact, caught, wasn't he? The laser was much smaller and less easy to track than a large rifle. Think about it.

Have they arrested the anthrax mailer yet?

Another irrelevant side track. Posting a letter is a lot more circumspect than hanging around and airport with a very large rifle. A better analogy would have been the D.C. snipers, except, oops, they were caught.

Alright then, if it will make you happy, I will totally do that.

It won't make me happy or unhappy. I don't really have the same emotional investment in this that you have. Be sure to tell us here at FR who you talk to and what you learned. You might some day also be able to help someone out of their CNN generated ignorance on the .50 caliber.

And if it will make you even more happy, I will completely agree with you that shooting down a plane with a .50 BMG is tremendously difficult.

But do you actually know it? More to the point, it's so tremendously difficult that it's simply not a threat. We have better things to do to stop terrorists than push for more "gun control". The border is a much bigger (and real world) threat, and not just because it porosity makes it possible for terrorists to smuggle in arms like RPG's (which do have a credible chance of bringing down a commercial airplane). Why hasn't CNN covered that risk?

Another point to the story is that it could be used in an attempted assassination of the president-or other people.

Which, again, can be more easily accomplished with other weapons. CNN also completely failed to mention any of the real world problems with such an attack, but sure tried to play up the "threat". They specifically mentioned the .50 caliber can punch through the armor of the presidential vehicles, but they utterly failed to mention any of the other relevant factors that make such an attack impossible. They didn't even try.

Does CNN seriously think the Secret Service hasn't accounted for the .50 caliber rifles in their protection schemes? They sure want their audience to think so. Have you ever seen an armored presidential motorcade? I have (Bill Clinton had a talent for stopping the freeways at the most inconvenient times). They are comprised of several armored vehicles, all with glass you can't see through. Sure, a .50 BMG could penetrate the vehicles' armor, but which vehicle? And which seat is the president sitting in? If you don't know where your target is, and you can't see it, what chance do you have of hitting it? You are also exposed to all the associated surveillance from some very sophisticated equipment in two of the vehicles and also a couple of overhead helicopters. Somehow, considering all the facts of the matter (that CNN neglected to mention), I'm not afraid for the president where the .50 caliber is concerned. The roadside bomb tactics that terrorists actually use have a much greater chance of success (which is why they use them).

You're getting caught up in one aspect of the story. I don't see how reporting on the dangers of that is anti-gun.

Actually, I had problems with all aspects of the story. Especially the parts that weren't in it. And it was these very omissions that made the report anti-gun, because anti-gun arguements simply do not hold water when confronted with the real world facts about firearms. If CNN had wanted to produce an unbiased (or, wonder of wonders, a pro-gun) report, why did they not mention the extreme difficulty of actually bringing down an airplane with a .50 BMG? Why didn't they mention the difficulty in countering the security measures around the president in their hypothetical assasination attempt? Why didn't they bother to talk to anyone fropm the FCSA, or any other group with direct knowledge about the real world capabilities of the .50 BMG? Why didn't they show a comparison of the "power" of the .50 BMG with any other rifle, or even give any context at all?

Nope, their report was nothing more than an irrelevant demonstration of the "power" of the .50 caliber, a repeat of several anti-gun catch phrases like "anyone off the street" and "unregulated", and a collection of ignorant conjectural (not to mention cockamamie) "threats" involving the .50 BMG. While the report did not call for a ban, that was not it's purpose. CNN leaves it to it's allies in congress (like Fineswine and Schumer) to call for the ban. CNN's intention was to plant a disingenuous seed of ignorant fear among their uneducated viewers so that when the ban called for by their gun grabbing buddies comes up, enough americans will be complacent enough about it to get it passed. I fail to see how, in the light of actual facts about the .50 caliber and firearms in general and the politics thereof, any intelligent viewer could see this as anything but an anti-gun hit piece.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.